• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outsted USDA employee Sherrod plans to sue blogger

Last edited:
Yes they can, as long as they were not a public(in the spotlight public) figure before hand.
If the information is purposefully presented in an edited format meant to defame a person, they can sue.

Being able to sue and winning your case are two different things. She can sue, but I don't know if she would win...at least with the limited info I have on it.
 
No, to add "Context" to the issue.

SHE HAS NO CASE. And she and her hubby aren't the post-racial saints you people want to believe they are.

Actually, she DOES have a case. This is the same kind of case as Carol Burnett v. The National Enquirer, in which Burnett walked away with a load of money, despite the retraction that the Enquirer later printed. The case is simple. The Enquirer took some things out of context to make it apperar that Burnett was publicly drunk in a restaurant, and their heads ended up in Burnett's lawyer's brief case. The same will happen here. Only the heads and the briefcase will be different.
 
Last edited:
Being able to sue and winning your case are two different things. She can sue, but I don't know if she would win...at least with the limited info I have on it.

True but that's with any case.

There is enough information to conclude that she does have a case because the information the was presented was purposefully edited.
 
True but that's with any case.

There is enough information to conclude that she does have a case because the information the was presented was purposefully edited.

I suspect the case will boil down to who edited the tape, and if Breitbart could have known it was edited.
 
You added zero context to the issue. You have not shown she has no case, or even explained in a clear way why you think she has no case. She is not her husband, and he is not relevant to the discussion, which is why it is an attempt to change the subject.

It was adding flavor. She has no case, and I all ready explained why but that was ignroed because it BLOWS HER CASE AWAY.

» Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism


The link that started it all.

Read it and watch, read it and weep. She HAS NO CASE.

Oh and he didn't edit it... again, she HAS NO CASE.

Breitbart said he'll post the full video, if he can get permission from the video production company who filmed it for a local NAACP chapter. He also maintained that he didn't edit the clip and that it was sent to him already edited.
Breitbart On Sherrod's NAACP Speech: 'I Did Not Edit This Thing' | TPMMuckraker


So we want to waste time on cheering on this racist hucksters BS "I'm a victim of racist BB!!" (BB = Brietbart) go for it. The case, if she files it, will go no where, and end with her looking horrible. I heard on the radio there is another video out there showing her talking about more recent events and is worse then this clip. Waiting to see if that was BS or not. IF a Link pops I'll post it, but not holding my breath right this second.
 
I suspect the case will boil down to who edited the tape, and if Breitbart could have known it was edited.

Pretty much.

Look at this, we're having a thoughtful and intelligent discussion.
(Not that this is unusual for you.)
Hopefully, it will encourage others to do the same.
 
Actually, she DOES have a case. This is the same kind of case as Carol Burnett v. The National Enquirer, in which Burnett walked away with a load of money, despite the retraction that the Enquirer later printed. The case is simple. The Enquirer took some things out of context to make it apperar that Burnett was publicly drunk in a restaurant, and their heads ended up in Burnett's lawyer's brief case. The same will happen here. Only the players and the briefcase will be different.

No, she has no case. He wasn't attacking her, he didn't edit the video, thus... you are completely off base.
 
And again, nothing to do with this topic, just more attempts to smear some one you don't like.

Edit: and wonderfully convincing source there...

I could care less about her, I think this "She's a victim" crap is gag inducing. You don;'t like the soure... find a counter to the info provided or STFU.
 
No, she has no case. He wasn't attacking her, he didn't edit the video, thus... you are completely off base.

The National Enquirer wasn't attacking Burnett either. They were merely **cough** reporting **cough**. And it doesn't matter who edited the tape. Breitbart put it up for everybody to see, which makes him culpable. The matter of who actually edited the tape is nothing but a red herring.
 
It was adding flavor. She has no case, and I all ready explained why but that was ignroed because it BLOWS HER CASE AWAY.

» Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism


The link that started it all.

Read it and watch, read it and weep. She HAS NO CASE.

Oh and he didn't edit it... again, she HAS NO CASE.


Breitbart On Sherrod's NAACP Speech: 'I Did Not Edit This Thing' | TPMMuckraker


So we want to waste time on cheering on this racist hucksters BS "I'm a victim of racist BB!!" (BB = Brietbart) go for it. The case, if she files it, will go no where, and end with her looking horrible. I heard on the radio there is another video out there showing her talking about more recent events and is worse then this clip. Waiting to see if that was BS or not. IF a Link pops I'll post it, but not holding my breath right this second.

Actually, based on that, she does have a case.
 
I could care less about her, I think this "She's a victim" crap is gag inducing. You don;'t like the soure... find a counter to the info provided or STFU.

She is a victim. She may not be a perfect person. Hell, she could be totally vile. That does not change the fact she was smeared by a distorted video and story.
 
Actually, she DOES have a case. This is the same kind of case as Carol Burnett v. The National Enquirer, in which Burnett walked away with a load of money, despite the retraction that the Enquirer later printed. The case is simple. The Enquirer took some things out of context to make it apperar that Burnett was publicly drunk in a restaurant, and their heads ended up in Burnett's lawyer's brief case. The same will happen here. Only the heads and the briefcase will be different.

Sherrod came out accusing Breitbart of being "racist" and wanting all black people to be slaves again. If she has a defamation suit, he arguable has the exact same one under the same logic...

Her case is a loser.
 
Sherrod came out accusing Breitbart of being "racist" and wanting all black people to be slaves again. If she has a defamation suit, he arguable has the exact same one under the same logic...

Her case is a loser.

OK, then show me the video Sherrod made of Breitbart.
 
652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if

(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

It is not clear if she would win or not, but the trial would probably make it past the initial procedures and an investigation would probably show that Breibart was clearly attempting to smear her.

Breibart's claim as of now is that he was attempting to show the audience applaud when Sherrod said that she was reluctant to help a white farmer. First of all, that is complete bull****, they were merely giving her sympathy because her father was murdered by a white farmer. Secondly, that was not Breibart's initial intentions at all, which is highlighted by the post that accompanied the video.
 
Last edited:
Sherrod came out accusing Breitbart of being "racist" and wanting all black people to be slaves again. If she has a defamation suit, he arguable has the exact same one under the same logic...

Her case is a loser.

There is a large, unsubtle difference between offering an opinion on some one, and distorting some ones words to make en entirely false point.
 
There is a large, unsubtle difference between offering an opinion on some one, and distorting some ones words to make en entirely false point.

You assume Breitbart actually distorted her words... that remains unproven as far as I am aware....

Hate the guy or not, he is entitled to the same protections under the law as everyone else. Until he is proven guilty in court, he has done nothing wrong.
 
Last edited:
The National Enquirer wasn't attacking Burnett either. They were merely **cough** reporting **cough**. And it doesn't matter who edited the tape. Breitbart put it up for everybody to see, which makes him culpable. The matter of who actually edited the tape is nothing but a red herring.

Wrong answer buddy.

If you have the entire video, and you alter it to make someone out to say or do soemthing they did not, a case is there.

If you post a clip of video, without knowing "the rest" of the story, which clearly he did not at the time of the posting, then you have to prove malicious intent on the part of, in this case BB. There was no malicious intent, he did not have the "rest of the story" and thus no case.

She has a better case about improper firing.

Her case is entirely based on emotional sensationalism, nothing more.
 
You don't need a video for a defamation suit...

Actually, with all due respect, you missed my point. There is a difference between having an opinion and manipulating evidence. Today I made the claim that most voters in Arizona are racist. By your logic, Arizonans have the right to sue my. But they can't. This was my OPINION. Same with Sherrod. Saying that Breitbart was racist was her opinion. On the other hand, Breitbart used manipulated video to give an appearance that Sherrod WAS racist. And that is the difference. This is defamation. Just having expressing an opinion isn't.

NOTE: You and I have a huge disagreement here, but you know what? I like you, and it's because you don't flame, call names, or engage in games. You debate honestly, and because of that, I have a lot of respect for you. I do honestly believe you are wrong, though.
 
Last edited:
You assume Breitbart actually distorted her words... that remains unproven as far as I am aware....

Hate the guy or not, he is entitled to the same protections under the law as everyone else. Until he is proven guilty in court, he has done nothing wrong.

I assume nothing, which you would know if you read the thread. I am simply pointing out the difference between the two allegations.
 
Wrong answer buddy.

If you have the entire video, and you alter it to make someone out to say or do soemthing they did not, a case is there.

If you post a clip of video, without knowing "the rest" of the story, which clearly he did not at the time of the posting, then you have to prove malicious intent on the part of, in this case BB. There was no malicious intent, he did not have the "rest of the story" and thus no case.

She has a better case about improper firing.

Her case is entirely based on emotional sensationalism, nothing more.

Negligence.
She still has a case.
 
She is a victim. She may not be a perfect person. Hell, she could be totally vile. That does not change the fact she was smeared by a distorted video and story.

How was it "Distorted" it was as full unedited CLIP of a speech she made. Do realize how liable say... Mediamatters would be if your logic were applicable to this?
 
Wrong answer buddy.

If you have the entire video, and you alter it to make someone out to say or do soemthing they did not, a case is there.

If you post a clip of video, without knowing "the rest" of the story, which clearly he did not at the time of the posting, then you have to prove malicious intent on the part of, in this case BB. There was no malicious intent, he did not have the "rest of the story" and thus no case.

She has a better case about improper firing.

Her case is entirely based on emotional sensationalism, nothing more.

I think a big part of the case will revolve around whether he had the whole tape(we have only his claim he did not, and he has proven to be less than reliable), whether he had reason to suspect it was edited to create a false impression, and whether he put a reasonable effort into finding out if the video was accurate.
 
Negligence.
She still has a case.

Only in the imagionation of people that want to believe that. REality says otherwise. Here's my bet, she WON'T sue,a nd if she tries BB will demand it go to trial and she'll drop the suit.
 
Back
Top Bottom